Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
I know where you're coming from Jobe. Before my mom died, she needed a new doc. Only thing is, no one would accept new Medicare patients. We even offered to PAY FULL CHARGES in cash, up front, for a visit and we told that violated the rules.

I'm sure once Sebelius gets through making up the rules, it will be the same thing.


Let's just break this down, if your mother "needed" a new doctor and you were willing to pay cash why would you be shopping for a doctor who accepted medicare? Perhaps a doctor was not taking new patients but you had already taken medicare out of the picture stating you were paying CASH! SHEESH! Your twisted logic to back up your rhetoric is showing b50m. You didn't even back up Jobe/Cage's reply where he was giving a fictional scenario under the Healthcare Reform Act.
What b50m is saying is that the current system needs reform. BushII had 8 years to do something and only added to the deficit with Medicare Part D, a 100% unfunded federal entitlement program designed to buy the 2004 Florida vote. Now, ObamaCare will force reform to be enacted in order to prevent the full impact of the ACA from being instituted.
Hopefully we can get obuma care repealed and a more common sense approach to health care reform. It’s obvious the lefties here don’t have a clue about what’s in the bill. If they did it would frighten them silly (well, they‘re already silly).

Again, ask yourselves why did Congress exclude themselves from this horrible health care bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Hopefully we can get obuma care repealed and a more common sense approach to health care reform. It’s obvious the lefties here don’t have a clue about what’s in the bill. If they did it would frighten them silly (well, they‘re already silly).

Again, ask yourselves why did Congress exclude themselves from this horrible health care bill.



Q: Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?

A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.


Factcheck Link


Seems that is incorrect. Sigh...


.
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Hopefully we can get obuma care repealed and a more common sense approach to health care reform. It’s obvious the lefties here don’t have a clue about what’s in the bill. If they did it would frighten them silly (well, they‘re already silly).

Again, ask yourselves why did Congress exclude themselves from this horrible health care bill.


Well answer me this, Jobe: Why, when the Republicans were in power for so long, didn't they reform healthcare in this country?

There's a reason for the healthcare bill. People are getting hosed by the for-profit healthcare industry in this country. When it's about profits, a life is of no value to these making-profits-out-the-wazoo insurance companies. But you're worried about gov't (a not-for-profit outfit) letting you die due to an unpaid bill? LOL!
Medicare Part D required drugs to be purchased in the US at prices sometimes 400% higher than the VA, because negotiating was not permitted. The Rep Congressman that was instrumental in getting that legislation passed, Billy Tauzin, immediately retired and became the chief lobbyist for Pharma, the drug manufacturers primary lobbying outfit. I believe he made about $2million/year for that do nothing job.

Buying insurance across state lines violates the power of the states to regulate within their boundaries.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Probably because the rep plan includes tort reform, buying across state lines, and buying drugs from Canada, which the dems refuse to use.

Candidate Obama was for Canadian drugs, Prez Obama is not.


Well, apparently healthcare reform wasn't very high on the Republicans' list of things to accomplish because they had years to put something on the table - Bush had eight to be exact - and only started putting up ideas when they heard about the Democrats' plan.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Thats what the UN is for.

Ending the military actions in the mideast would save the US about $250billion next year alone. Let the Brits and the Aussies take the load for a few decades.


The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. In Kosovo, UN troops became the best customers of the human traffickers, until they took over the business.

The Brits are cutting their military by 20 percent.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Hopefully we can get obuma care repealed and a more common sense approach to health care reform. It’s obvious the lefties here don’t have a clue about what’s in the bill. If they did it would frighten them silly (well, they‘re already silly).

Again, ask yourselves why did Congress exclude themselves from this horrible health care bill.


Well answer me this, Jobe: Why, when the Republicans were in power for so long, didn't they reform healthcare in this country?

There's a reason for the healthcare bill. People are getting hosed by the for-profit healthcare industry in this country. When it's about profits, a life is of no value to these making-profits-out-the-wazoo insurance companies. But you're worried about gov't (a not-for-profit outfit) letting you die due to an unpaid bill? LOL!


I’m glad the Republicans didn’t screw up healthcare in this country. I’m disappointed in the dims for ruining our healthcare system.

My parents had several life saving procedures and the insurance company never turned them down. The insurance company’s will do what’s covered in the policy. Perhaps you should read the insurance you purchased before waiting on a incident to happen.

I’m not worried about the government paying my bill. I’m worried they won’t approve a procedure I need. I’ve dealt with the government with my parents and dealing with the government is a complete joke. It sickens me to know that healthcare as we know it now will be gone. I should have the choice as to what insurance I want without the governments interference. But now I must buy insurance I don’t want and if I don’t I will be fined. Doesn’t sound like America to me.

Sad to hear you depend on the government for your needs.
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Currently, if private insurance will not pay for a procedure the procedure is done anyway. The doctor or hospital may not get paid but it’s done. Under your president’s plan, the procedure will not get done at all. Why you want some bureaucrat to make your health care decision is beyond comprehension.

Take a look at this. I don’t want obuma care. Why would anybody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ


So, the government is the equivalent of a bureaucrat making decisions, but private health insurers aren't? That's funny. You must pay for all of your health costs out of pocket.

Anyway, under the president's plan, the procedure will in fact get done if you have the money to pay for it out of pocket. That's exactly how it works now with private health insurers. If they refuse to pay (even after you've gone 12 rounds with them and had the doctor re-file the procedure under another code), you have to pay for it out of pocket. So what's the difference? There isn't a difference.

I've had three surgeries so far in this life and before every one of those costly surgeries, I've had to obtain approval from my insurance company and pay the fees to my doctor, surgeon, deductible, before the surgeon would touch me. I've even had a surgery rejected, yes, rejected by my HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDER when it was needed. I ended up rolling the dice, having the surgery, and hoping the insurance company would reimburse my credit card. They did, but if they hadn't, I WOULD BE THE ONE WHO PAID THE BILL. So, what's the difference?????

And we're not talking about a 45-year-old woman who needs treatment for breast cancer. We're talking about people - mostly older - who have been diagnosed with fatal diseases, diseases that will kill them very soon. It's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of taxpayers' money to keep these people alive for a month when they're going to die in four months. However, if these people want to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to extend life for maybe a month, they can do so out of pocket.

Again, private health insurers already dictate who lives and who dies.


No the procedure will NOT get done if you pay out of pocket. You didn’t watch the video and know nothing about obuma’s health care plan. If a doctor accepts payment for a procedure the government did not approve then that doctor can be subjected to criminal prosecution. Try taking the government to court over a health care claim. You will lose. I’d much rather be taking the insurance company to court than the government.

Ask yourself why congress excluded themselves from obuma care. That should tell anybody (with any sense) all they need to know about obuma care.


Notice how they are quiet on this point. Now you can get the procedure if you pay but under the passed plan no option to pay.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Currently, if private insurance will not pay for a procedure the procedure is done anyway. The doctor or hospital may not get paid but it’s done. Under your president’s plan, the procedure will not get done at all. Why you want some bureaucrat to make your health care decision is beyond comprehension.

Take a look at this. I don’t want obuma care. Why would anybody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ


So, the government is the equivalent of a bureaucrat making decisions, but private health insurers aren't? That's funny. You must pay for all of your health costs out of pocket.

Anyway, under the president's plan, the procedure will in fact get done if you have the money to pay for it out of pocket. That's exactly how it works now with private health insurers. If they refuse to pay (even after you've gone 12 rounds with them and had the doctor re-file the procedure under another code), you have to pay for it out of pocket. So what's the difference? There isn't a difference.

I've had three surgeries so far in this life and before every one of those costly surgeries, I've had to obtain approval from my insurance company and pay the fees to my doctor, surgeon, deductible, before the surgeon would touch me. I've even had a surgery rejected, yes, rejected by my HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDER when it was needed. I ended up rolling the dice, having the surgery, and hoping the insurance company would reimburse my credit card. They did, but if they hadn't, I WOULD BE THE ONE WHO PAID THE BILL. So, what's the difference?????

And we're not talking about a 45-year-old woman who needs treatment for breast cancer. We're talking about people - mostly older - who have been diagnosed with fatal diseases, diseases that will kill them very soon. It's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of taxpayers' money to keep these people alive for a month when they're going to die in four months. However, if these people want to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to extend life for maybe a month, they can do so out of pocket.

Again, private health insurers already dictate who lives and who dies.


No the procedure will NOT get done if you pay out of pocket. You didn’t watch the video and know nothing about obuma’s health care plan. If a doctor accepts payment for a procedure the government did not approve then that doctor can be subjected to criminal prosecution. Try taking the government to court over a health care claim. You will lose. I’d much rather be taking the insurance company to court than the government.

Ask yourself why congress excluded themselves from obuma care. That should tell anybody (with any sense) all they need to know about obuma care.


Notice how they are quiet on this point. Now you can get the procedure if you pay but under the passed plan no option to pay.


How would you not have the option to pay for any procedure/surgery yourself - under any plan?

No one is going to stop you from getting a procedure done if you can pay for it yourself. That's the same way it works right now: If your health insurance "provider" refuses to pay (as they often do), you just pay out of pocket.

People get elective plastic surgery all the time and pay out of pocket. So Obama is going to put an end to plastic surgery in your opinion?
I'm going to try to explain this to you again, Jobe. Reading comprehension is obviously no longer emphasized in Shoals area schools.

quote:
My parents had several life saving procedures and the insurance company never turned them down.


So, because your parents' insurance provider didn't reject any of their medical claims for life saving procedures, that means that no one, nowhere, at any time has EVER had a legitimate claim rejected?
quote:
The insurance company’s will do what’s covered in the policy. Perhaps you should read the insurance you purchased before waiting on a incident to happen.


I did read my policy (which was through my husband's employer) and it stated that it would pay for needed medical procedures/surgeries after the deductible and co-pays were met. The procedure they rejected, having a cyst the size of a tennis ball removed from my ovary, was a medical necessity according to my doctor because there was no way for him to know whether or not it was malignant without getting in there. But what does he know? He's just a silly medical doctor with nowhere near the medical expertise of insurance company clerks and bureaucrats! Roll Eyes

As for "waiting for an incident to happen", I suppose my mother could have opted to have my ovaries removed as an infant (when I was on her insurance plan) to ensure I didn't develop cysts on them - even though no one in my family has had a history of developing ovarian cysts and it is actually quite common in women. So, by your logic, all women should have their ovaries removed early on so they don't have to "wait on an incident to happen." Brilliant!

quote:
I’m not worried about the government paying my bill. I’m worried they won’t approve a procedure I need.


Again, and read slowly this time, PRIVATE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE PROVIDERS REJECT LEGITIMATE CLAIMS ALL THE TIME!!! I posted my own story and, again, there are countless others all over the Internet.

This is why we need a public option. It would force insurance companies to play fair or go out of business.
Dont neglect rescission, either. Insurance companies have been routinely dropping insured when they get sick, meaning no more claims, and no more denials, which make their records of denials look better, and their profits considerably higher. When testifying before Congress, the CEO of United Health admitted that it was standard practice and indicated that until it was made illegal it would continue.

For some companies, rejecting claims at the first submittal is standard procedure.
BCBS have never participated in rescission that I know of. They do routinely turn down claims. Hubby needed some rehab and even though we had the doctor write a letter stating it was necessary after being tuned down twice, they still refused to pay.

All I see coming from Obamacare is idiocy on steroids.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×